The efficacy of mindfulness apps on symptoms of depression and anxiety: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

IF 13.7 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Clinical Psychology Review Pub Date : 2023-12-03 DOI:10.1016/j.cpr.2023.102370
Jake Linardon , Mariel Messer , Simon B. Goldberg , Matthew Fuller-Tyszkiewicz
{"title":"The efficacy of mindfulness apps on symptoms of depression and anxiety: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials","authors":"Jake Linardon ,&nbsp;Mariel Messer ,&nbsp;Simon B. Goldberg ,&nbsp;Matthew Fuller-Tyszkiewicz","doi":"10.1016/j.cpr.2023.102370","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Mindfulness apps have become popular tools for addressing symptoms of depression and anxiety. Since the publication of earlier meta-analyses evaluating the efficacy of mindfulness apps for depression and anxiety symptoms, over 20 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted. There is a need for an updated meta-analysis that quantifies the effects of mindfulness apps on these symptoms and tests for potential moderators.. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted on 45 RCTs. Small, significant effect sizes were found for symptoms of depression (<em>N</em><sub><em>comp</em></sub> = 46, <em>N</em> = 5852, g = 0.24, 95% CI = 0.17, 0.31, NNT = 13.57) and anxiety (<em>N</em><sub><em>comp</em></sub> = 48, <em>N</em> = 6082, g = 0.28, 95% CI = 0.21, 0.35, NNT = 11.47) in favour of mindfulness apps over control groups. This effect was not explained by symptom deterioration in participants allocated to control groups. Effects remained stable when restricting analyses to lower risk of bias and larger sample trials. No significant moderators were observed, except trials that offered monetary compensation produced larger effects on depression. Non-significant effects were observed when comparing mindfulness apps to active therapeutic comparisons (<em>g</em> = −0.15 depression, <em>g</em> = 0.10 anxiety), though the number of studies was low. Growing evidence indicates that mindfulness apps can acutely reduce symptoms of depression and anxiety, although higher quality studies with longer follow-ups are needed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48458,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":13.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735823001289/pdfft?md5=668b97483fc9d9673086a75c95f698a9&pid=1-s2.0-S0272735823001289-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735823001289","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Mindfulness apps have become popular tools for addressing symptoms of depression and anxiety. Since the publication of earlier meta-analyses evaluating the efficacy of mindfulness apps for depression and anxiety symptoms, over 20 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted. There is a need for an updated meta-analysis that quantifies the effects of mindfulness apps on these symptoms and tests for potential moderators.. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted on 45 RCTs. Small, significant effect sizes were found for symptoms of depression (Ncomp = 46, N = 5852, g = 0.24, 95% CI = 0.17, 0.31, NNT = 13.57) and anxiety (Ncomp = 48, N = 6082, g = 0.28, 95% CI = 0.21, 0.35, NNT = 11.47) in favour of mindfulness apps over control groups. This effect was not explained by symptom deterioration in participants allocated to control groups. Effects remained stable when restricting analyses to lower risk of bias and larger sample trials. No significant moderators were observed, except trials that offered monetary compensation produced larger effects on depression. Non-significant effects were observed when comparing mindfulness apps to active therapeutic comparisons (g = −0.15 depression, g = 0.10 anxiety), though the number of studies was low. Growing evidence indicates that mindfulness apps can acutely reduce symptoms of depression and anxiety, although higher quality studies with longer follow-ups are needed.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
正念应用程序对抑郁和焦虑症状的疗效:随机对照试验的最新荟萃分析
正念应用程序已经成为解决抑郁和焦虑症状的流行工具。自从早期评估正念应用程序对抑郁和焦虑症状疗效的荟萃分析发表以来,已经进行了20多项随机对照试验(rct)。有必要进行一项更新的荟萃分析,量化正念应用对这些症状的影响,并对潜在的调节因素进行测试。对43项随机对照试验进行随机效应荟萃分析。小,显著的影响大小为抑郁症的症状被发现(Ncomp = 46,N = 5852 g = 0.24,95% CI = 0.17,0.31,例数十分 = 13.57)和焦虑(Ncomp = 48 N = 6082 g = 0.28,95% CI = 0.21,0.35,例数十分 = 11.47)正念应用控制组织的支持。这种影响不能用被分配到对照组的参与者症状恶化来解释。当将分析限制在低偏倚风险和大样本试验时,效果保持稳定。除了提供金钱补偿的试验对抑郁症产生更大的影响外,没有观察到显著的调节因子。当将正念应用程序与积极治疗比较时,观察到无显著影响(g = - 0.15抑郁,g = 0.10焦虑),尽管研究数量很少。越来越多的证据表明,正念应用程序可以显著减轻抑郁和焦虑的症状,尽管需要更高质量的研究和更长时间的随访。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Psychology Review
Clinical Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
23.10
自引率
1.60%
发文量
65
期刊介绍: Clinical Psychology Review serves as a platform for substantial reviews addressing pertinent topics in clinical psychology. Encompassing a spectrum of issues, from psychopathology to behavior therapy, cognition to cognitive therapies, behavioral medicine to community mental health, assessment, and child development, the journal seeks cutting-edge papers that significantly contribute to advancing the science and/or practice of clinical psychology. While maintaining a primary focus on topics directly related to clinical psychology, the journal occasionally features reviews on psychophysiology, learning therapy, experimental psychopathology, and social psychology, provided they demonstrate a clear connection to research or practice in clinical psychology. Integrative literature reviews and summaries of innovative ongoing clinical research programs find a place within its pages. However, reports on individual research studies and theoretical treatises or clinical guides lacking an empirical base are deemed inappropriate for publication.
期刊最新文献
Factors related to help-seeking and service utilization for professional mental healthcare among young people: An umbrella review Positive health outcomes of mindfulness-based interventions for cancer patients and survivors: A systematic review and meta-analysis Sleep and paranoia: A systematic review and meta-analysis Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder: Systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrating the impact of study quality on prevalence rates Gender nonconformity and common mental health problems: A meta-analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1